Quality Assessment of Safety Sustainability in Urban Parks (Case Study: District and Zonal Parks in Rasht City)

Introduction

These days, more than half of our planet's population lives in cities. Since the last century, the urbanization has grown rapidly, with an annual growth rate of 3.5% (Pacion, 2009). The predictions show a 60% increase by 2030 (Khan, 2007: 2). This rapid growth, however, has encountered many cities with problems in recent decades and stoked urgency for improving the environment quality in different dimensions. Public spaces which are providing services, welfare and recreational facilities have a significant effect on environment quality and the promotion of urban sustainability level. One of the main sections of these public spaces is parks. They are one of the key elements of sustainable urban development, which is also called natural tranquil atmosphere. These spaces play an important role in reducing the stress of citizens, improving their mental health and providing a favorable environment for breathing (Balram, 2005: 148). The safety quality of parks is very important because of its significant impact on different dimensions of living quality and social sustainability. In fact, these provide spaces for sports and recreation activities for children and adults. Therefore, upgrading their security is really crucial. Some criteria which determine the safety level of urban parks are the safety of sports facilities and floor surfaces and the status of lighting system, emergency facilities, security and space visibility. All these criteria have their own different sub-criterion.

Methodology

The research method used here is descriptive-analytical one. All samples on district and zonal functions of parks are gathered from 7 parks with a total area of ​​more than 2 hectares spread across Rasht city (see Fig. 1). This study considers 9 criteria and 30 sub-criteria based on the results of theoretical studies and those used in other studies, which show explicitly the safety state of the parks. All criteria and sub-criteria are arranged based on the Likert spectrum questionnaire as well as face-to-face interviews. The data are analyzed by statistical analysis of mean, variance and mean difference (T-test) using SPSS software.

Fig1: The location of parks in Rasht city

Results and Discussion

The analysis of results indicates that the City Park in Rasht, with an average desirability equal to 3.90, is the best one whereas some such as Mellat, Sabzeh Meidan and Tohid with the average desirability equal to 2.90 are the worst with regard to the safety quality criteria. The comparative studies of parks with playing spaces for children and sport spaces for adults indicate that the City Park and Sabzeh Meidan parks are the highest desirable and the lowest desirable ones, respectively. The results also show that Daneshjoo and Shahr Parks with averages of 4.2 and 1 have the highest and the lowest desirability considering the safety criteria for children. Regarding the safety state of facilities, the value of desirability for Sabzeh Meidan and City Park and for Mellat and Keshavarz parks are obtained 4.25 and 3, respectively. The safety state of playing facilities in Daneshjoo and Sabzeh Meidan are obtained equal to 4.6 and 1, respectively. Considering the safety state of floor surfaces, Daneshjoo and Sabzeh Meidan parks and Keshavarz Park have the average desirability values equal to 5 and 2, respectively. Analyzing the status of lighting system showed that Giyah Shenasi Park has the highest quality value equal to 4 and Mellat Park with the value of 2.5 has the lowest quality value. Regarding emergency facilities, Sabzeh Meidan Park and Giyah Shenasi Park have the desirability values of 4.67 and 1.7, respectively. Giyah Shenasi and Mellat parks regarding the security level have the values of 4 and 1, respectively. Finally, the highest and lowest values of desirability for Tohid and Giyah Shenasi parks are obtained 5 and 2, respectively (see Table 1).

Table 1: Status of criteria studied in the parks




criteria







Park
The location of playing or sport spaces

(Q1)
The safety states of spaces

(Q2)
The safety state of park facilities

(Q3)
The safety state of playing or sport facilities

(Q4)
The safety state of floor surface

(Q5)
Lighting system status

Q6
The status of emergency facilities

Q7
The state of security

(Q8)
The status of space visibility

Q9
Mean


Daneshjoo
3.75
4.20
3.75
4.60
5.00
2.75
3.00
2.00
2.67
3.70


Sabzeh Meydan
1.00
1.00
4.25
1.00
5.00
3.75
4.67
1.00
3.33
2.90


Mellat
3.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
2.50
3.00
1.00
2.33
2.90


Keshavarz
3.50
3.80
3.00
3.60
2.00
2.75
3.33
1.67
3.67
3.00


Shahr
5.00
4.20
4.25
4.40
5.00
3.75
4.67
1.00
3.00
3.90


Tohid
2.00
2.00
3.50
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
2.90


Giyah Shenasi
4.25
3.6
4
4
3.5
4
1.7
4.1
2.00
3.32


Mean
3.21
3.26
3.68
3.23
3.93
3.21
3.33
1.96
3.14
3.23





T-test is applied to compare the means (averages) of different criteria. Considering 95% confidence interval, the results show that the obtained significance levels of all criteria except the security one (i.e. Q8) are higher than the test value which is equal to 3. Furthermore, the tendency towards relative desirability of safety is observed in the studied parks (see Table 2).









Table 2. Estimation of the difference in mean of criteria in the statistical T-test




Criteria


Test value: 3


T


d


Significant


Average difference
95% confidence interval


l
u


Q1
.418
6
.002
.2143
-.3056
.7341


Q2
.543
6
.002
.2571
-.2227
.7370


Q3
3.359
6
.015
.6786
.4738
.8833


Q4
.457
6
.000
.2286
-.2784
.7356


Q5
2.100
6
.021
.9286
.4804
1.3767


Q6
.941
6
.003
.2143
-.0165
.4451


Q7
.856
6
.000
.3386
-.0623
.7395


Q8
-2.294
6
.042
-1.0329
-1.4890
-.5767


Q9
.379
6
.000
.1429
-.2393
.5250





Conclusion

The analysis of the park locations based on the mean of all safety criteria in the form of the acceptable standard level indicates that the absolute difference between the mean of each park and the acceptable standard level is insignificant (see Figure 2). Furthermore, the results of the locations of the parks show that the urban parks of Rasht have a value which is slightly higher than acceptable standard level regarding the safety criterion. This implies that the necessity of planning to increase the safety criteria values of parks is inevitable because the growth of urban dimensions and increased need to parking spaces, depreciation of parks equipment will decrease the present value of safety criteria.



Figure 2: Difference between the acceptable standard level and mean of each

park based on the total criteria



According to the analysis, it can be concluded that:

• Park spaces in Rasht city are different in terms of the quality of safety criteria and do not have the same level of safety.• The total mean difference of all criteria in the parks of Rasht based on the T-test is 3.23 which are near to acceptable standard value (i.e. 3). It indicates that considering a 95% confidence level, all parks have a minimum level of safety.

• Although the safety quality of the park spaces in Rasht is close to the acceptable standard level, it is far from the desirable standard.

• The state of security in all parks is unacceptable and it is below the standard level.

• The mean value of all criteria in semi-central, and northern parks of the city (i.e. Mellat, Tohid, Keshavarz and Sabzeh Meidan parks) compared to southern parks is low (see Fig. 2).

• The acceptable standard level of all criteria, mean value of criteria and difference between criteria show that the mean value of criteria in the parks are different.

• Regarding the safety quality, the difference between urban parks of Rasht and the acceptable standard level which is equal to 4.4 indicates that the parks are not in a suitable condition.

Therefore, based on the above points, the hypothesis that the safety quality level of urban parks is different and the level is close to the acceptable standard but far from the appropriate standard value.